Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Nov 5, 2010 7:50pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Does This Make Sense?

I have a copy of Devil Girl from Mars (1954), which has a COPYRIGHT MCMLIV GIGI PRODUCTIONS LTD. notice in the film. There is no motion picture renewal, but there is one for the music, so it's not PD.

Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: RE0000143450 / 1982-11-16
Renewal registration for: EFO000028882 / 1954-06-04
Title: Devil girl from Mars. Music: Edwin Thomas Astley.
Copyright Claimant: Edwin Astley (A)

Variant title: Devil girl from Mars.
Names: Astley, Edwin Thomas

What's interesting is its copyright was GATT restored!

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0000883933 / 1997-12-29
Title: Devil girl from Mars.
Description: Motion picture.
Copyright Claimant: Wade Williams
Date of Publication: 1954
Authorship on Application: James C. Mathens, James Eastwood.
Copyright Note: Reg. under GATT/URAA restoration

Names: Williams, Wade
Mathens, James C.
Eastwood, James

Am I missing something, or has Wade Williams pulled another fast one?

There's also a GATT notice for the trailer, which I don't have. I wonder if it contains a copyright notice, too.

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0000883881 / 1997-12-29
Title: Devil girl from Mars : theatrical trailer.
Description: Videocassette ; 1/2 in.
Copyright Claimant: Wade Williams
Date of Publication: 1954
Authorship on Application: John C. Mathews & James Eastwood.
Copyright Note: Reg. under GATT/URAA restoration.

Variant title: Devil girl from Mars : theatrical trailer.
Names: Williams, Wade
Mathews, John C.
Eastwood, James

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mystic550 Date: Nov 5, 2010 8:38pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Does This Make Sense?

Yes it looks like a fast one. I had another video I had in question. When I ran a Google search I found that the copyright claim for GATT renewal was from a US based company. And that company now no longer exists, wonder why. My understanding is for GATT the renewal claim has to be from the foreign filmmaker/copyright holder.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Nov 8, 2010 9:52am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Does This Make Sense?

Copyright holders differ in every country. In this case the Director is Scottish -- so we don't have to look any further -- because in almost every country outside the USA a director is one of the copyright holders. As such, if the film was not PD in the country of its initialy release in 1996, it is GATT eligible

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: Nov 8, 2010 2:20pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Does This Make Sense? / Devil Girl of Mars GATT status

The way that the GATT/URAA legislation added wording to the Copyright Act, it is unnecessary for there to have been a Notice of Intent to Enforce. The wording states that restored copyright occurs automatically; filing of an Intent merely puts others on notice.

The relevant passages:

104a · Copyright in restored works
(a) Automatic Protection and Term.—
(1) Term.—
(A) Copyright subsists, in accordance with this section, in restored works, and vests automatically on the date of restoration.

[...]

(b) Ownership of Restored Copyright.—A restored work vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work.

--------------------

With regard to the claim made in this thread that a claim by Wade Williams is not binding because he is an American and thus not "the foreign filmmaker/copyright holder": take notice of the wording in (B) that "A restored work vests INITIALLY"--this suggests that although Williams could not be first in line for the rights, he could nonetheless be second in line, and scoop up the rights by licensing them from whomever was first in line. That's how I'm reading "initially."

Again (quoting from "(A)"), "Copyright subsists, in accordance with this section, in restored works, and vests automatically on the date of restoration." Even if no one filed, there would be GATT protection. Thus, even if Williams's filing is fraudulent (to know that, you would have to know his contractual and licensing arrangements with the British rights-holders--yet for all I know, Williams has legitimate claims), there can be a valid copyright apart from this.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Nov 6, 2010 2:06am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Does This Make Sense?

We need a lawyer to tell us how to file a class action copyfraud suit against Wade Williams, and demand that he release all his legal copyrights into the public domain as damages.

This post was modified by skybandit on 2010-11-06 09:06:35

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Elric_Dewisant Date: Nov 6, 2010 6:38am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Does This Make Sense?

So what? Williams can't be prosecuted for copyright fraud, or some other such abuse of the system kind of offence?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Nov 6, 2010 7:28am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Does This Make Sense?

It is illegal to materially misrepresent information on a copyright office filing. But its a criminal offence and rarely prosecuted and the maximum penalty is a $2500 fine. So it is far too easy to get away with. The US should adopt the stance that countries like Australia have were the fines and punishments for copyfraud were brought into line with those for copyright infringement creating a perfect balance.